Started By
Message
re: Bama owns 10% of the nation's Top 100 with ten months to go.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:28 am to scrooster
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:28 am to scrooster
quote:
Do #1 classes always translate into eventual national championship games?
To answer this question directly:
Since recruiting classes started being ranked in 2000, the only #1 ranked classes to not at least appear in a National Championship game after 4 years was USC. I believe that happened to them on two occasions.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 9:30 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:44 am to Tuscaloosa
Team rankings, according to Rivals, over the past ten years ...
2004 - 1 SoCal, 2 LSU, 3 FSU, 4 Miami, 5 Mich, 6 Georgia, 7 Florida, 24 Bama (SoCal sucked four years later. UF Gators won 2008 BCSCG)
2005 - 1 SoCal, 2 FSU, 3 Okla, 4 Tenn, 5 Nebraska, 6 Mich, 7 Miami, 8 A&M, 15 Florida, 19 Bama ... (SoCal sucked four years later, Bama won 2009 BCSCG)
2006 - 1 SoCal, 2 Florida, 3 FSU, 4 UGA, 5 Texas, 6 PSU, 7 LSU, 8 Notre Dame, 9 Okla, 10 Auburn, 11 Bama ... (SoCal sucked four years later, Auburn won 2010 BCSCG)
2007 - 1 Florida, 2 SoCal, 3 Tenn, 4 LSU, 5 Texas, 6 SCAR, 7 Auburn, 8 Notre Dame, 9 UGA, 10 Bama ... (Bama won 2011 BCSCG)
2008 - 1 Bama, 2 Notre Dame, 3 Florida, 9 FSU ... (Bama won 2012 BCSCG)
2009 - 1 Bama, 2 LSU, 3 OSU, 4 SoCal, 7 FSU ... (FSU won 2013 BCSCG)
2010 - 1 SoCal, 2 Florida, 3 Texas, 4 Auburn, 5 Bama ... (Auburn wins in same year, 2010) (Playoffs begin four years later, 2014)
2011 - 1 Bama, 2 FSU, 3 Texas, 4 SoCal, 5 UGA (Bama wins in same year, 2011) (Champion yet to be determined in four years, 2015)
2012 - 1 Bama, 2 Texas, 3 Florida, 4 OSU, 5 Stanford (Bama wins in same year, 2012)(Champion yet to be determined for 2016)
2013 1 Bama, 2 OSU, 3 Notre Dame, 4 Florida, 5 Michigan (FSU wins in same year)(Champion yet to be determined in 2017)
2014 1 Bama (a predetermined, foregone, conclusion)
So, it's a fairly safe bet that whomever has the #1 class is not necessarily going to win the championship ... and that was my point. Having the #1 class is almost like winning the Par 3 tourney at The Masters to some degree.
ETA: More years
2004 - 1 SoCal, 2 LSU, 3 FSU, 4 Miami, 5 Mich, 6 Georgia, 7 Florida, 24 Bama (SoCal sucked four years later. UF Gators won 2008 BCSCG)
2005 - 1 SoCal, 2 FSU, 3 Okla, 4 Tenn, 5 Nebraska, 6 Mich, 7 Miami, 8 A&M, 15 Florida, 19 Bama ... (SoCal sucked four years later, Bama won 2009 BCSCG)
2006 - 1 SoCal, 2 Florida, 3 FSU, 4 UGA, 5 Texas, 6 PSU, 7 LSU, 8 Notre Dame, 9 Okla, 10 Auburn, 11 Bama ... (SoCal sucked four years later, Auburn won 2010 BCSCG)
2007 - 1 Florida, 2 SoCal, 3 Tenn, 4 LSU, 5 Texas, 6 SCAR, 7 Auburn, 8 Notre Dame, 9 UGA, 10 Bama ... (Bama won 2011 BCSCG)
2008 - 1 Bama, 2 Notre Dame, 3 Florida, 9 FSU ... (Bama won 2012 BCSCG)
2009 - 1 Bama, 2 LSU, 3 OSU, 4 SoCal, 7 FSU ... (FSU won 2013 BCSCG)
2010 - 1 SoCal, 2 Florida, 3 Texas, 4 Auburn, 5 Bama ... (Auburn wins in same year, 2010) (Playoffs begin four years later, 2014)
2011 - 1 Bama, 2 FSU, 3 Texas, 4 SoCal, 5 UGA (Bama wins in same year, 2011) (Champion yet to be determined in four years, 2015)
2012 - 1 Bama, 2 Texas, 3 Florida, 4 OSU, 5 Stanford (Bama wins in same year, 2012)(Champion yet to be determined for 2016)
2013 1 Bama, 2 OSU, 3 Notre Dame, 4 Florida, 5 Michigan (FSU wins in same year)(Champion yet to be determined in 2017)
2014 1 Bama (a predetermined, foregone, conclusion)
So, it's a fairly safe bet that whomever has the #1 class is not necessarily going to win the championship ... and that was my point. Having the #1 class is almost like winning the Par 3 tourney at The Masters to some degree.
ETA: More years
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 9:55 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:50 am to scrooster
quote:
So, it's a fairly safe bet that whomever has the #1 class is not necessarily going to win the championship ... and that was my point. Having the #1 class is almost like winning the Par 3 tourney at The Masters.
According to your list, that's not true at all. Look at your list again, and I'll add to it.
2002 - Texas - Won a National Championship in 2005
2003 - LSU - signed by Nick Saban, and won a National Championship in 2003. Several members of LSU's 2007 National Championship were also a part of this class.
2004 - USC - Won a National Championship in 2004 and played for another in 2005
2005 - USC - Played for it in 2005
2006 - USC - First of USC's two top ranked classes who didn't play for a national championship - as noted in my above post
2007 - Florida - Won a national championship in 2008, and was good enough to win another one in 2009.
2008 - Alabama - Won national championships in 2009 and 2011
2009 - Alabama - Won national championships in 2009, 2011, and 2012
2010 - USC - USC's second no-show of a class
2011 - Alabama - Won National Championships in 2011 and 2012
2012 - Alabama - Won National Championship in 2012
9 out of those 11 classes played for at least one national championship.
8 out of those 11 won a national championship.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 9:53 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:53 am to Tuscaloosa
Signing the top class and winning a national championship in the same year isn't indicative of anything. The vast majority of those players don't contribute in the first year.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:56 am to Yintros
Alabama Drafts, The rest of the SEC recruits.. (think that was a Lane K quote)
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:58 am to scrooster
It's silly to say it doesn't matter when it's been proven repeatedly that teams that pull in top classes play top bowl games, including most of the title contenders. Hell, Bama won 3 of 4 national titles, so, yeah, recruiting matters. It's not the end-all and be-all, certainly, and the gap between the top 5 recruiting classes (for instance) isn't a huge one except in terms of prestige, but there's a reason why scrappy underdogs with rejects from other teams rarely win big outside of sports movies or 1970s Oakland.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 9:59 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:59 am to Tuscaloosa
Tuscaloosa ... you're proving my point.
With rare exceptions, it is the blue chip/blue collar mixed classes that win the championships and set things on the right path, not the resulting #1 classes which are the results of winning the championships in the first place.
There IS a law of diminishing returns when it comes to football talent whereas you can simply have too much blue chip and not enough blue collar.
It is obvious that Saban has constructed a dynasty of sorts. He should be winning championships every year - he should be unbeatable ... if it's all about #1 classes.
Correct?
With rare exceptions, it is the blue chip/blue collar mixed classes that win the championships and set things on the right path, not the resulting #1 classes which are the results of winning the championships in the first place.
There IS a law of diminishing returns when it comes to football talent whereas you can simply have too much blue chip and not enough blue collar.
It is obvious that Saban has constructed a dynasty of sorts. He should be winning championships every year - he should be unbeatable ... if it's all about #1 classes.
Correct?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:02 am to Yintros
quote:
Signing the top class and winning a national championship in the same year isn't indicative of anything. The vast majority of those players don't contribute in the first year.
Thank you, you are exactly correct. As the old saying goes and I paraphrase here but, "if you are planning your season around, and relying on freshmen, especially true freshmen, then you are in trouble."
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:02 am to Yintros
quote:
Signing the top class and winning a national championship in the same year isn't indicative of anything. The vast majority of those players don't contribute in the first year.
I don't think that's necessarily accurate. I think signing that #1 class provides momentum and immediate depth, and it also creates more competition at each position, which makes everyone better. And that's assuming none of them play. When you add in the freshmen who come in and contribute immediately - I think it's clear that Freshman classes certainly have a huge impact on championship teams.
I know they have at Alabama.
In 2009, Bama signed JUCO LT James Carpenter (future first round selection) who started immediately on a dominant offensive line. They also signed Trent Richardson, who was an impact player that year. Other contributors from that class were Dre Kirkpatrick and DJ Fluker.
In 2011, we brought in Jesse Williams, HaHa Clinton-Dix, Trey DePriest, and Cyrus Kouandjio. All were contributors, and at the very least increased the level of depth and competition at each of their positions - a vital part of any championship team.
In 2012, we brought in impact freshmen Amari Cooper and TJ Yeldon.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 10:07 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:02 am to randomways
OP used a sample size of 100 in OP, then reduces sample to 1(#1 class) when trying to defend his conclusions. Why not use at least top 10 classes instead of limiting to one.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:03 am to scrooster
Not to rain on your theory, but you have to remember that "blue-chip" classes are very different in football than in basketball. UK or Duke can sign an entire starting line-up of top 100 players. No football program, not even USC or Bama, does that. There's always an extremely generous allotment of "blue collar" in the mix. Granted, "blue collar" for those programs may be top-ranked recruits for, say, Vandy, but they're still hardly elite on a national scale.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:04 am to scrooster
quote:
Tuscaloosa ... you're proving my point.
That's ridiculous. You're trying to prove that signing #1 ranked recruiting classes doesn't necessarily translate to championships.
I just showed you that 9 of the previous 11 #1 ranked recruiting classes have finished with at least one national championship.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:09 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
That's ridiculous. You're trying to prove that signing #1 ranked recruiting classes doesn't necessarily translate to championships.
I just showed you that 9 of the previous 11 #1 ranked recruiting classes have finished with at least one national championship.
I think he's focusing a bit too much on semantics. No, nothing's automatic. Yes, there's always going to be an element of chance. No, there aren't any guarantees. But he's making a valid point only in the context of a philosophically specious argument. There will always be exceptions, but they don't in any way support generalizations like the influence of recruiting classes does.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:10 am to scrooster
quote:
With rare exceptions, it is the blue chip/blue collar mixed classes that win the championships and set things on the right path, not the resulting #1 classes which are the results of winning the championships in the first place.
Perhaps. But one thing to consider is that some blue chip recruits have blue collar mindsets. I know in Bama's class we had one five star, Christian Miller, tell us that he wants to redshirt because he wants to be stronger and more mature when he sees the field. Another five star, DaShawn Hand, told our staff he was coming to Bama because he didn't want to be the big man on campus. He wants to work for it. Despite what AJ McCarron says, not all five stars are primadonnas.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:12 am to scrooster
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this whole thread was some ploy to make fans of a team that doesn't recruit particularly well feel better about themselves, while at the same time trying to downplay the domination in recruiting by another team.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:14 am to Teague
quote:
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this whole thread was some ploy to make fans of a team that doesn't recruit particularly well feel better about themselves, while at the same time trying to downplay the domination in recruiting by another team.
Hey, it's not all of us. We got excited about getting a good 4 star player on the same day y'all recruited so many that most of your fans probably can't name them all yet. Some of us are realistic.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:18 am to scrooster
You're quite easily the top cock poster on this site.
Solid analysis though. As much as Alabama just wins like a motherfricker, I'll bet the house every three years that Alabama will have a down year from now on.
Solid analysis though. As much as Alabama just wins like a motherfricker, I'll bet the house every three years that Alabama will have a down year from now on.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:28 am to scrooster
Chemistry is the big thing with Bama. It's hard to keep guys motivated to get the same prize every year. You're going to have 2010 & 2013 types of years. This should be Bama's "bounce back" year. I'd give 50/50 odds Bama wins the national title this year. Talent is not an issue.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 10:30 am to scrooster
If A&M get Kyler Murray, Christian Kirk, Malik Jefferson, and Kendall Sheffield, we very likely end up with the number one class. A lot has to fall our way, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News